The world is undergoing profound turmoil. Yet upheaval does not arrive overnight. It emerges when long-standing balances of power collapse, when the values and institutions sustaining an established order weaken, and when new technologies transform the foundations of international society.
The strategic rivalry between the United States and China represents just such a historical transformation. Their competition extends beyond military strength and economic influence to semiconductors, artificial intelligence, energy, space, finance, currencies, culture and political values. At the center of this transformation stands South Korea.
The United States is its indispensable security ally, while China remains a major economic neighbor. North Korea’s nuclear weapons continue to threaten peace on the Korean Peninsula, and tensions across the Taiwan Strait add uncertainty to Northeast Asia. Meanwhile, an international economy once driven by globalization and free trade is being reorganized around economic security, technological competition and resilient supply chains.
What strategic choices should South Korea make in this changing world?
This is the central question explored in “Upheaval: South Korea’s Survival Strategy in the Era of U.S.–China Strategic Competition,” an edited volume led by Kim Heung-kyu, president of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy.
Bringing together specialists in diplomacy, security, economics, technology and defense, the book moves beyond a conventional comparison of American and Chinese power. It examines structural changes in the international order and asks how South Korea can safeguard its security, prosperity and strategic autonomy.
Kim, a longtime scholar of China and international relations, has consistently emphasized the importance of long-term national strategy. The Plaza Project, a nonpartisan policy network he helped develop, brings together experts across ideological and political boundaries.
Its underlying principle is compelling: a country’s survival strategy must not be held hostage to partisan interests or ideological slogans. It requires an accurate assessment of international realities and a sustained commitment to the national interest.
The significance of “Upheaval” lies in this integrated approach. Diplomacy, military security, semiconductor technology, economic resilience and the Korean Peninsula are interconnected dimensions of national power.
To understand the challenge, it helps to look beyond contemporary international relations and return to the insights of ancient thinkers.
More than 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu wrote in “The Art of War” that the highest form of warfare was to defeat an adversary’s strategy. Disrupting alliances came next, followed by attacking armies. Besieging fortified cities was the least desirable option. His most celebrated principle was to subdue an enemy without fighting.
Military power remains essential in this understanding of strategy. Its ultimate purpose, however, is to secure national objectives while minimizing destruction and unnecessary conflict. The principle has particular relevance for South Korea. A country that defines its foreign policy entirely by which great power it opposes risks becoming an instrument of another nation’s strategy.
South Korea must understand the interests and capabilities of both Washington and Beijing while developing its own approach to security and prosperity.
This does not imply neutrality between the United States and China. South Korea’s security rests on its U.S. alliance, and its constitutional commitments to democracy, the rule of law, freedom and human dignity must remain firm.
A strong alliance should also leave room for independent judgment. South Korea can strengthen its alliances while retaining diplomatic flexibility and cultivating a wider range of partnerships.
Laozi offers another insight. In Chapter 11 of the “Tao Te Ching,” he explains that tangible things provide advantages, but empty space makes them useful. A wheel turns around the opening at its center; a vessel is useful because of its hollow interior.
The analogy has relevance to international politics. Military strength, economic resources and technological capabilities are essential components of national power. Trust, diplomatic flexibility, cultural influence and international legitimacy create the space in which that power can operate effectively.
Weapons and wealth can compel others. They cannot, by themselves, sustain a respected international order.
After World War II, American influence rested on military and economic superiority, but also on international institutions, alliances, universities, scientific innovation, financial networks and cultural appeal.
The Bretton Woods system and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations helped shape the environment in which American leadership expanded. That order was never free of contradictions. Wars, interventionism, inequality and double standards also marked American power.
Even so, the combination of military capability, institutions, technology and culture helps explain the durability of U.S. influence.
China’s rise likewise cannot be explained through military expansion alone. Since reform and opening-up, it has become a manufacturing powerhouse, developed a vast domestic market and built increasingly competitive industries in electric vehicles, batteries, telecommunications, robotics and artificial intelligence.
It also faces serious challenges: demographic change, property-market weakness, local-government debt, restrictions on access to technology and international distrust.
Neither country is likely to dominate every dimension of global power without challenge. The emerging order may therefore be defined by an uneasy combination of competition, cooperation, confrontation and interdependence.
History offers warnings about navigating such an order.
The Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta showed how rivalry between major powers could devastate entire societies. Thucydides’ account of the Melian Dialogue exposed the vulnerability of smaller communities when power overwhelmed justice.
South Korea, however, is not ancient Melos. It possesses advanced manufacturing, sophisticated technologies, substantial economic and military resources, a highly educated population and growing cultural influence. Its central challenge is to bring these strengths together in a coherent national strategy.
Korea’s experience in the late 19th century offers a more immediate warning. As Qing China, Japan, Russia and Western powers competed for influence, Korea struggled to undertake the internal reforms and build the capabilities needed to preserve its sovereignty.
Responsibility for colonial domination lies with Japanese imperial aggression. Korea’s historical tragedy also underscores the importance of understanding international change and strengthening domestic institutions.
Modern South Korean history offers a contrasting lesson. From the devastation of war, the country invested in education and industrialization, expanded political freedom through democratization, and built globally competitive industries in semiconductors, automobiles, shipbuilding, steel, information technology and culture.
These achievements belong to the accumulated efforts of workers, entrepreneurs, scientists, educators and citizens across generations and administrations.
South Korea now stands at another turning point. This time, the decisive technologies include artificial intelligence, semiconductors and physical AI — machine intelligence embedded in robots, autonomous vehicles, factories and other real-world systems.
Coal, steel, oil and naval power once helped determine the international balance. Today, advanced chips, data, algorithms, electricity, robotics and sophisticated manufacturing are becoming equally fundamental.
AI is a general-purpose technology capable of transforming productivity, military decision-making, intelligence, diplomacy, public administration, education, healthcare, culture and journalism.
Its economy can be understood through five interconnected layers: energy and electricity; semiconductors, including graphics processors and high-bandwidth memory; data and cloud infrastructure; AI models and applications; and physical AI.
Weakness in any layer can undermine the whole. Advanced chips need reliable electricity. Computing infrastructure needs data and software to generate economic value. AI models must find practical uses in manufacturing, healthcare, logistics, transportation and defense to deliver their full industrial impact.
South Korea has considerable advantages. Samsung Electronics and SK hynix occupy critical positions in the global semiconductor supply chain. Hyundai Motor and other manufacturers bring experience in vehicles, robotics and industrial automation. Shipbuilding, defense technology, biotechnology, healthcare, telecommunications and digital content offer further opportunities.
Connecting these capabilities could make South Korea a leader in applying AI to the physical economy.
The government has identified AI data centers, advanced semiconductors and physical AI as strategic priorities.
Announcements and investment commitments, however, are only a beginning. Progress must be measured in available electricity, trained personnel, commercially viable applications and productivity gains.
This is where industrial strategy becomes foreign policy. The semiconductor industry depends on an intricate division of labor spanning the United States, China, Taiwan, Japan, the Netherlands and South Korea.
No single country can easily dominate chip design, manufacturing equipment, advanced memory, materials and packaging. As technological competition intensifies, diplomatic relationships become increasingly important to keeping these supply chains resilient.
South Korea should deepen advanced-technology cooperation with the United States while managing its economic relationship with China realistically. It should expand cooperation with Japan in materials, equipment and research, and with Europe in technological standards, energy and industrial regulation.
Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East and Central Asia should be treated as long-term partners in technology, manufacturing and development, as well as export markets. Such diversification strengthens national resilience.
Physical AI is especially promising because it builds on South Korea’s manufacturing capabilities. Success is far from assured, however. China is drawing on its vast manufacturing base to advance industrial and humanoid robotics. The United States brings strengths in AI models, chip design, software and capital markets.
South Korea cannot rely on its past industrial achievements. It must connect semiconductor production, energy infrastructure, computing, software, robotics and advanced manufacturing. That requires sustained cooperation among universities, research institutes, large corporations, smaller businesses, and central and local governments.
Regional development is essential to this effort. Industrial transformation cannot be concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area alone.
Manufacturing in the Gyeongsang provinces and North Jeolla, AI expertise in Gwangju, robotics and electronics in Daegu and North Gyeongsang, semiconductor research in the Chungcheong region, and automotive and maritime industries in Busan and Ulsan should form complementary parts of a national network.
Saemangeum and other regional industrial zones may offer opportunities to combine energy infrastructure, industrial land and advanced manufacturing. Their success will depend on reliable power, transmission networks, water, transportation, skilled workers, housing and commercially sustainable investment.
Regional innovation also has a security dimension. Concentrating data centers, industrial facilities and research capabilities in a small area creates vulnerabilities to disasters, cyberattacks and geopolitical disruption. Geographic diversification can strengthen resilience.
No national strategy, however, can be complete without addressing the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities require credible deterrence and a strong combined defense posture with the United States. At the same time, South Korea should pursue practical measures to reduce military tensions, prevent accidental escalation and preserve channels for dialogue.
Deterrence can create conditions for meaningful dialogue, while dialogue can reduce the risk of confrontation.
The peninsula’s future must not become merely a subsidiary issue in U.S.–China rivalry. As the country most directly affected, South Korea must retain a clear vision for long-term peace and eventual reconciliation, even when larger powers’ interests diverge.
Sun Tzu’s instruction to know both the adversary and oneself remains relevant. South Korea should neither underestimate North Korea’s capabilities nor lose sight of its own economic, technological, diplomatic and military strengths.
We must also ask why South Korea should become stronger.
Higher semiconductor output, greater military capability and leadership in AI are means to a larger purpose: protecting human life and freedom, sustaining culture, and enabling future generations to pursue their aspirations in a peaceful and sustainable environment.
Laozi teaches the importance of knowing when enough is enough and when to stop. Understanding one’s capabilities and limits, avoiding unnecessary confrontation and resisting reckless expansion are forms of strategic wisdom.
The histories of Rome, the Spanish and British empires, and the Soviet Union differ greatly. Each nevertheless offers lessons about excessive commitments, institutional rigidity, internal division and the gap between external ambitions and domestic capacity.
South Korea should aspire to become a country the world needs: a producer of essential semiconductors, AI technologies, automobiles and ships; a democracy committed to the rule of law; and a contributor to solutions for climate change, disease, poverty and war.
Korean culture provides a foundation for that influence. K-pop, dramas, cinema, literature, food and everyday traditions have made the country familiar to audiences around the world. Culture builds relationships through shared emotions and imagination. As Korean chips and AI connect industries, Korean culture can deepen connections among people.
South Korea’s national strategy should therefore rest on three pillars. First, credible security and trusted alliances. South Korea must strengthen its alliance with the United States while expanding its own capabilities in intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, cybersecurity, space security and advanced defense technologies.
Second, technological and industrial autonomy. South Korea must build indispensable strengths in semiconductors, AI, physical AI, energy and biotechnology. Autonomy means securing essential capabilities while benefiting from international specialization and cooperation; it does not require complete self-sufficiency.
Third, global diplomatic and cultural engagement. South Korea must broaden partnerships across Southeast Asia, India, Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America. Businesses, universities, journalists, artists, regional authorities and civil society all have roles alongside government.
These pillars depend on one another. Weak security undermines economic confidence. Weak industry erodes the foundations of defense. Diplomatic credibility and cultural influence help translate economic achievement into lasting international standing.
National strategy brings these dimensions together around a common purpose.
This, in my view, is the fundamental question raised by Kim Heung-kyu’s “Upheaval”: Will South Korea wait for the decisions of great powers, or develop the capacity to shape its own future?
The answer requires more than political leadership, diplomacy or corporate investment. It demands responsible journalism, innovative businesses, courageous scientists, capable institutions and citizens who understand both national interests and universal human values.
Journalism, in particular, must interpret global developments from Korea’s perspective while remaining committed to truth, justice, freedom and factual accuracy. Repeating the arguments of powerful countries is not enough.
Ultimately, I return to three values: humanity, culture and nature.
Technology that disregards humanity can become dangerous. Economic growth without culture becomes hollow. Prosperity that destroys nature cannot endure. A national strategy for the AI age must keep these values at its center.
The essential question in U.S.–China rivalry is what kind of country South Korea intends to become. Its answer should bring trust to alliances, competence to competition, wisdom to diplomacy, innovation to industry and dignity to culture.
Upheaval creates opportunities for countries able to understand change and prepare for it. South Korea has already demonstrated its capacity to overcome war, poverty, authoritarianism and economic crises. Its next challenge is to turn that experience into a strategy for the future.
Sun Tzu teaches the wisdom of achieving objectives without unnecessary warfare. Laozi emphasizes restraint in the exercise of strength. History warns against the arrogance of great powers. AI, semiconductors and physical AI show where the foundations of future national capabilities are being built.
Together, these lessons make the case for South Korea to take greater responsibility for its own destiny.
We do not need to dominate the world. We need to become a country the world needs.
*The author is the chairman of Aju News Corporation and the publisher of Aju Business Daily and AJP.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.